Here's some research I have collected:
4-9-15:
Not published:
FAMILY LAW
20-2-6421 M.K. v. A.K.,App. Div. (per curiam) (23 pp.) Defendant A.K. appealed from an order entered by the Family Part on Aug. 22, 2013, granting visitation to plaintiffs M.K. and L.K. pursuant to the Grandparent Visitation Statute. The judge determined that plaintiffs had established grounds for relief under the statute. The judge rejected defendant's contention that the harm to the children alleged by plaintiffs was insufficient to justify an order requiring visitation. The judge stated that defendant's action in refusing to allow plaintiffs visitation was resulting in emotional harm and trauma to the children and the denial of visitation was cruel. The judge stated that there was an "unusually close" relationship between plaintiffs and the children at the time of their father's death and that relationship had been impaired by defendant's unilateral action in severing the children's relationship with the paternal family. The judge found that Max's death occurred under particularly traumatic circumstances because it was sudden and unexpected. The judge found that plaintiffs could serve as a buffer for the children against the tragic effects of their father's death, in view of the close relationship that plaintiffs had with Max and both children. The judge found that plaintiffs had established by more than the preponderance of the evidence that the children will suffer harm if the visitation they seek is denied. The judge also found that plaintiffs had established grounds for visitation by clear and convincing evidence. The appellate panel considered and rejected defendant's arguments that: (1) the trial judge misapplied the law as established by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of New Jersey by failing to give deference and specific weight to her decision as to the persons with whom her children have contact; (2) the trial court's comparison of the facts of this case to those in Moriarty v. Bradt, represented a misunderstanding of the applicable legal principles; and (3) the psychologist's report was a net opinion that was not supported by facts or authority. The panel affirmed the order providing visitation rights under the statute.
4-18-14 App Div
Judges Told To Keep Personal Views Out of Grandparent Visitation Cases
A New Jersey appeals court on Wednesday issued an instructive opinion on how family judges should and shouldn't treat requests for grandparental visitation, reversing a denial that seemed tainted by the judge's personal views about the plaintiffs' failure to seek a resolution of the dispute before resorting to litigation. "[A] judge's personal views should play no role in determining the legal viability of a case, especially when, as here, the Legislature has codified the elements of the cause of action as a matter of public policy," the panel said in Major v. Maguire.
20-2-3569 Major v. Maguire, App. Div. (per curiam) (12 pp.) Plaintiffs are the paternal grandparents of a six-year-old child, "Jane." Defendant is Jane's mother; Jane's father died two months before plaintiffs filed this complaint seeking visitation with their grandchild pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. The Family Part dismissed plaintiffs' complaint without an evidentiary hearing or permitting the parties to engage in discovery. The court also did not conduct a case management conference or otherwise make any effort to identify the issues in the case or determine the potential for settlement through alternative methods of dispute resolution. In this appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred in dismissing their complaint as a matter of law because they established a prima facie case for relief pursuant to the standards established by the Legislature in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1, and the New Jersey Supreme Court's holding in Moriarty v. Bradt . Plaintiffs also argue the court abused its discretion in failing to permit the parties to engage in discovery, in precluding them from presenting the testimony of an expert who would have opined as to the potential harm Jane would suffer from being denied regular contacts with her paternal grandparents, and failing to conduct a case management conference to identify the issues in the case and determine the potential for resolution through mediation. Defendant argues the court properly dismissed plaintiffs' complaint because they failed to overcome her presumptively valid objections to visitation. The appellate panel finds the approach employed by the trial court here is inconsistent with the legal principles expressed by the Court in Moriarty and untethered to the standards codified in N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1. The panel reverses and remands for the trial court to reexamine plaintiffs' complaint de novo, adhering to the procedures and principles described in R.K. v. D.L.
FAMILY LAW - VISITATION 7-12-12
20-2-6958 D.G.G. v. B.B.G., App. Div. (per curiam) (21 pp.) Grandmother S.B.R. (Sara) appeals from the order dismissing, without a hearing, her complaint seeking visitation with her grandson, Steve. She also appeals from the order assessing counsel fees of $89,716.27 against her and her husband, R.R.F. (Rafael), who is now deceased. The appellate panel reverses both orders and remands for a plenary hearing. In May 2000, Steve was born in New Jersey to D.G.G. (Dan), an American citizen, and his now-deceased wife, B.B.G. (Belinda), a Brazilian citizen. Belinda and Rafael, the Brazilian maternal grandparents purchased a condominium near the marital home in New Jersey for their use during frequent visits. Four years later, Belinda took Steve to Brazil for a visit and refused to return him to the United States. Lawsuits were brought in New Jersey and Brazil. After Belinda died, pursuant to a decision by Brazil's Supreme Federal Court, Dan regained legal and physical custody of Steve in December 2009, five years after Steve was brought to Brazil by his mother. The appellate panel finds that due to the death of Steve's mother and an unusually close bond between Steve and his maternal grandmother, Sara has demonstrated sufficient reason to require a plenary hearing and the opportunity for discovery. The panel's disagreement with the motion judge's findings regarding the parties' good faith, made without an opportunity to assess their credibility through an evidentiary hearing, requires reversal of the counsel fee award as well.
GRANDPARENT VISITATION ISSUES - and Sibling visitation post adoption - see below
Grandparent Visitation Statute: N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1:
N.J.S.A. 9:2-7.1
9:2-7.1. Visitation rights for grandparents or siblings
Currentness
a. A grandparent or any sibling of a child residing in this State may make application before the Superior Court, in accordance with the Rules of Court, for an order for visitation. It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the granting of visitation is in the best interests of the child.
b. In making a determination on an application filed pursuant to this section, the court shall consider the following factors:
(1) The relationship between the child and the applicant;
(2) The relationship between each of the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing and the applicant;
(3) The time which has elapsed since the child last had contact with the applicant;
(4) The effect that such visitation will have on the relationship between the child and the child's parents or the person with whom the child is residing;
(5) If the parents are divorced or separated, the time sharing arrangement which exists between the parents with regard to the child;
(6) The good faith of the applicant in filing the application;
(7) Any history of physical, emotional or sexual abuse or neglect by the applicant; and
(8) Any other factor relevant to the best interests of the child.
c. With regard to any application made pursuant to this section, it shall be prima facie evidence that visitation is in the child's best interest if the applicant had, in the past, been a full-time caretaker for the child.
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 9:2-7.1 (West)
Felice T. Londa, Esq.
Londa & Londa, Esqs.
277 North Broad Street
Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208
Work (908) 353-5600
Fax (908) 353-5610
[email protected]www.LondaLaw.com
Original Message------
Is there any more recent case law on this subject to offer some guidance as to the meaning of "harm" to the child that has to be shown if GPs are not allowed to see the child? The last case I see is Rente v. Rente,390 N.J. Super. 487, App. Div. (2007).
Thank you.
------------------------------
Mary Jane Leland Esq.
Freehold NJ
(732)409-7777
------------------------------